Lunar Development

Keith Cowing Needs a Civics Lesson

From  NASA WATCH

September 30th

GRIFFIN STEPS IN IT AGAIN

NASA chief: U.S. may end flights with Russians, AP

"NASA's top official said today that the future of U.S participation in Russian space flights is in doubt due to a congressional measure that aims to punish Moscow for its cooperation with Iran."

Editor's note:Who is advising Griffin on this issue? The last time I checked Congress was looking forward to revising the INA to help NASA.

Keith, until Congress does revise The Iran Non-proliferation Agreement (INA), it is the law of the land and Griffin would be in violation of it if he tried to use Russian space flights. Griffin's back is against the wall, don't criticize him.

Blame Congress for not fixing it sooner.

Blame Rohrbacher for writing the problem provisions in the first place.

Griffin had no part in putting us in this Hobson's choice of choosing weakness on weapons of  mass destruction technology proliferation to Iran or the Space Station. The fault for this situation lies squarely at the feet of Representative Dana Rohrbacher.

Michael Griffin-The Bravest Man on Earth

An article by Traci Watson in  USA TODAY stated

The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.

Finally someone in power in the Aerospace community willing to admit turning away from the Moon was a major error. And it was the NASA Administrator no less. This man has guts. This is what we needed to change NASA culture to go forward without the blinders which make safe operation impossible.  This admission is getting down to bed rock honesty and breaking the denial that has plagued NASA for decades. Also see Florida Today and .

Thank you and Congratulations Dr. Griffin.

Keith Cowing on  NASAWATCH

Mike Griffin speaks for the President. The reactions take one (or more) of three directions: Griffin is unable to articulate his ideas clearly; there is a serious disconnect between stated White House policy and its implementation; or the White House no longer (and perhaps never did) care about space.

First, being a head of an agency doesn't mean you speak for the President.   There are very few people who do that. An agency head saying that a mistake was made decades ago by the previous management of that agency bears absolutely no bearing on the President or his policies.  In fact the Presidents Policy has been to reverse the error for the last 18 Months.  Second, Griffin articulated his ideas very clearly.  Third, I see no disconnect at all with the White House.  Forth, NASA is only 1% of the Federal Budget, NASA should be well run enough  and be able to form appropriate goals and implement them well enough that the president doesn't have to care, except when he is taking credit for their successes.

I talked to Dr. Griffin last night at the Women in Aerospace (WIA) awards reception before this story came out , I wish I had known about it so I could have thanked him personally for his courage. We talked about NASA's Lunar planning,,  he said they are working on the plan for the lunar surface now, he thought energy was among the justifications for going to the Moon. I suggested that Mid January would be a prime time to push the lunar energy justification in the Media as that is when the sky high heating bills will hit, estimated to be 250% of last years. I also suggested that NASA should establish a strong community of groups interested in using the Moon so that it is less likely that the return to the Moon will be victim of the next election.   

Exploration Systems Arichtechture Study (ESAS)

The results are in on NASA's current planning for How We'll get back to the Moon, the next step toward making President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) a reality.

I like that it has up to 6 flight s a year and can land 4 people at at time on the Moon. I like that Dr. Griffen talks about all the science that can be done on the Moon.  While there are few details on what exactly we will do on the Moon at least we haven't been limited by small ideas.

I do have some concerns.

1. Two launches required per lunar Mission - I believe this will be more dangerous than single launch missions do to the pressure to launch so as not to waste the equipment from the first launch. Also 2 launches have twice the failure rate as one launch.

2. The launch system is shuttle derived- The shuttle is not safe, this new system uses the same hard ware and maintains the same culture.   The hardware and culture which has cost us 14 lives.

3. Polar  site for base- The light conditions seem to make this a less than idea spot to put a base.

4. Crew Excursion vehicle reuseable 10 times- is this worth making it reusable, is it worth the required inspections?

5. Methane fueled lunar lander- this is great for Mars but how good is it for long term use of lunar derived fuels? how hard would it be to switch to something which could be lunar derived after this system has been thoroughly tested for Mars.

Will Katrina destroy ISS too?

Katrina was a very  powerful but nobody expected its destruction could reach all the way to Low Earth Orbit. The External Tank Factory for the shuttle is in New Orleans. While initial reports were optimistic the continuing deterioration of the situation in New Orleans looks bad for the external tank plant. The reports of looters and fires sound even worse.The satellite photo looks like the area is flooded. (compare to the Google Map, looking at the area to the east of I-510).

The work force is scattered, their homes destroyed, along with the entire infrastructure of New Orleans.  NASA is talking about a delay of the next shuttle launch until May.  I think that is very optimistic.  They may be able to move workers to Florida to modify the tanks they have.

Another year delay in the station would make completion by deadline impossible. If the Michoud plant is badly damaged how much are we willing to pay to fix it?  This cost should be considered when looking at the cost of the Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle since, if the major repair of the facility will not help ISS construction, it should be considered part of the the new launcher. Which may eliminate any cost advantage over, starting from scratch with a Boeing built Saturn 5 derived launch vehicle.

What We Need Now is the Third Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities

In 1984 and 1992 there were two conferences Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century and The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century both are edited by Wendel Mendel. These conference proceedings are the basis of all thought on lunar development. What is needed now is the The Third Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century.

Unlike the first two conferences this should be a conference sponsored by and with active participation from the highest levels of NASA Headquarters, not by a few renegades at one center.

Also this should be a conference where all ideas are listened to and recorded. I have bene to several NASA conferences which claim to be looking for ideas but the actual note taking is done by NASA employees determined that nothing comes out of the conference which is not the NASA party line. One conference the Legislative Affairs people invited themselves to the conference and then appointed themselves note takers in order to control the results. Such conferences are an insult to those who came to share their ideas and a total waste of tax payers money. They are a prime example of why NASA is in this mess.

This conference should either be in Washington DC near NASA HQ, in Houston near JSC or in Florida near KSC. The location is important to maximize NASA participation at all levels.

This conference needs to have time to give papers as well as time to gain synthesis between ideas. It is amazing the number of papers in the first two conferences where which point to problems which solve each other. Such as papers complaining about the artificial atmosphere that will be create by lunar mining of nitrogen and noble gases, while another points out how rare and important these gases are and how expensive it will be to ship them from earth. And no one suggests that we might want to design the mining equipment to collect these gases.

This conference needs to include the full range of the lunar science and development community such as lunar mining advocate, helium-3 proponents, space solar power advocates, astronomers, geologist, physicists, life support researchers and ISRU proponents. This should not be limited to the lunar community, the Mars advocates should come as well but the primary focus must be on lunar development or we will never get to Mars.

The Third Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities in the 21st Century could create a plan for the next century of space development. It could give NASA a clear vision of how and why to pursue the Vision for Space Exploration. which they can inspire the public with.

What Happened to Safe, Simple, Soon?

NASA Watch has an interesting letter from an Anonymous Career NASA Aerospace Engineer

The more eye-opening budget projection concerned the human return to the moon on a nominal date of 2018. The ESAS assumed a two person crew, two day on the lunar surface sprint mission -- essentially Apollo Redux -- except over thirteen years instead of the eight that the Apollo Program lasted. The briefing stated that from 2012 to 2018, NASA will need at least another $46 Billion (~28 weeks of the Iraq War), which comes close to $7 Billion more per year. $7 B is nearly half of NASA's baseline annual budget of $16 B. How likely is Congress to give NASA or any other federal agency a 50% increase over baseline in 2012?

Why is this costing so much for so little? Sure launch costs to the Moon are expensive but the Shuttle derived launch vehicle is suppose to be cheap to develop. The CEV is suppose to be pretty simple too, just and slightly larger Apollo capsule with some guideence. And all we get $100 billion (including what we are all ready planning to spend) is 2 people on the Moon for 2 days?

I am sure this letter leaves some things out but this sounds awfully steep. This sounds like they going with the Cadillac all the bells and whistles approach, rather than anything simple. All the bells and whistles tend to distract from safety and 2018 is not soon.

Or maybe the real problem is they are trying to go to the Moon with a dead elephant on their back, The shuttle and station.  I guess we will have to wait for the roll out to know what is really going on and why the projected costs are so high.

Too Early for NASA to Pursue Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicles

The Orlando Sentinel has an article on NASA's current plans for the Vision for Space Explorarion. Which left me wondering if top NASA officals are in denial.

The crews would blast off aboard rockets derived from the space-shuttle fleet and parachute back to Earth in capsules similar to those used during the Apollo program.

Isn’t this the worst possible time to propose we use shuttle derived hardware for the next generation of launch vehicles. The Expendable Tank with its seemingly unsolvable foam problem is at the center for the new launch vehicle. Solving this problem will require a major redesign, so why not start from scratch.

I wonder, which genius thought putting foam on the outside of a launch vehicle was a good idea, in the first place? No one would put foam on the outside of their house or car, it is too delicate. Why in God’s name did NASA think it was a good idea to put on the outside of a launch vehicle?

Another real problem with the new launch vehicle proposal is the plans for what to do on the Moon are so vague.

Pioneers would build a lunar outpost, most likely at the south pole, with living quarters, power plants and communication systems. Expeditions would scavenge the desolate landscape for precious supplies such as fuel and water.

How many pioneers?  How long do they plan to stay?

Of course they would require living quarters, power plants and communications systems but what kind?

Is NASA forgetting Life support and radiation protection?

And how exactly do they plan to scavenge fuel and water?

Do they plan to do any science? Astronomy? Geology? Physics? Biology? Dangerous Life science and nanotech we don’t want done in our biosphere?

Will we want to put a Hubble sized telescope on the lunar south pole? I am sure some astronomers will want the data that type of telescope would collect. The Hubble’s optics combined with the Moon’s stability and slow rotation would allow amazing astronomy, but this would require a big launcher. Let's not rule out the posibility before we have had time to consider it.

These questions must be answered BEFORE we decide on a launch system not after. It is clear to everyone that building the shuttle was a big mistake. Let’s not compound the problem by building another bad launch vehicle.

If NASA designs the launch vehicle before the mission, it is almost surely be inadequate or simply wrong. The mission should determine the payloads and the payloads the parameters of the launch vehicle, not the launch vehicle the possible payloads therefore determining the mission, because others would not be possible with the only available launch vehicle.  Also determining the launch vehicle first could drive up costs if the dimensions were too small some items would have to be sent up in pieces and assembled in the abrasive lunar dust instead of sent up whole and immediately functional on landing.

With a decade before the next Moon landing there is no need to run into a blind alley in what we know is a bad neighborhood.  We should put the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle plans  on the shelf until the plans for the lunar surface have be worked  out in detail and agreed upon by everyone required to make them work AND the shuttle has been returned to safe regular flights.

Outer Space Treaty Stopped Space Development?

Allan Wasser in an essay in Space Review says that Johnson proposed the Outer Space Treaty to slow down the Space Race and save money and blames it for stopping lunar development. I have no argument that the Outer Space Treaty took away incentive for the space race and for government competition on the Moon. I don't blame it for lack of commercial development.

If the Russians still wanted to race after the Moon Landing, it probably would have meant a race to Mars, which was beyond everyones budget and technology, and still is. So offering a graceful truce  was probably in everyone's interests. Unfortunately when NASA traded in the Saturn 5 for the Space Shuttle there was no longer a way to get to the Moon so all lunar activity stopped.

The Outer Space Treaty is not really an obstacle for commercial development. No one has sovereignty over the electromagnetic spectrum but the airways have been developed and are a multibillion sector of the economy. The key is the International Telecommunications Union. If we use it as a model for granting right of use to lunar territory, then the Outer Space Treaty will no be an obstacle to lunar development.

No business really cares if they actually own the land, as long as no one else bothers them on it. The beauty of the ITU model is we only need to negotiate right of use with those nations that can actually get to the Moon. Which means instead of dealing with over a hundred nations, we only need to negotiate with a few.

Zubrin - Right Points, Wrong Conclusions

Robert Zubrin’s “Getting Space Exploration Right” has a few points I actually agree with although sometimes he comes to the wrong conclusion. He talks about how Apollo was goal driven and Shuttle was technology driven. That the technology driven aspect of NASA for the last thirty years is the cause of the stagnation. I agree and would add the cause of their failure is that they choose technologies beyond their reach. Since the Shuttle couldn’t do what it was suppose to NASA forgot the goals and concentrated on the technology.  NASA must get back to being goal driven because technology development without purpose is basically masturbation. Neither the shuttle nor the space station have space related goals outside of serving each other.

I agree with Zubrin in calling for speeding up the development of the CEV, it is basically 30 year old technology and any competent aerospace company should be able to build it before the 2010 cut off date for the shuttle. 

Zubrin also makes the point that trying to avoid developing a Heavy lift vehicle is a mistake. One proposal for the next human moon landing calls for 4 medium lift vehicle launches and on orbit rendezvous. If this approach was feasible the Russians would have beat us to the Moon. The precise reason why the Moon was chosen as a goal for the Space Race by Kennedy was while the Russians had the lead in small launch vehicles but landing humans on the Moon required such a large launch Vehicle, the superior National System of Innovation in the US could beat the Russian. If a Moon landing could have been accomplished by less than a Saturn 5 class vehicle the Russians would have done it by 1965.

While it is possible that modern technologies such as our superior computing and control technologies have made it possible, I am still very skeptical.  Before we go any further down that path I would like to see two independent analysis of the launch window requirement for such a mission.

One major concern I have is launch pressure causing bad launch decisions.  If the launch windows are tight and three of the four launches are in orbit waiting for the crew, there may be a tendency to minimize problems because of all the pressure to launch. Launch pressure was put forward as part of the reason for the Challenger disaster, but that pressure was exterior not designed into the system. Imagine the pressure to launch if the final possible launch window is closing and the three previous launches will have used to much fuel and have to be repeated if the forth launch is postponed any further.  Any system which places pressure on one launch because of another is putting pressure on flight controllers to lower safety standards. 

Another issue is that the launch failure rate is unrelated to the size of the launch vehicles and all launch vehicles which are kept in service for any length of time have failure similar failure rates. No vehicle is perfect but if any launch vehicle blows up more than a small percent of the time it is no longer used. So a mission requiring 4 launches instead of one will have 4 times the failure rate of a mission requiring one launch.

Also since a heavy lift vehicle will be required for real lunar development or a Mars mission why not just go ahead and build one. We know how, we have done it before. Zubrin favors shuttle technology, but since the shuttle is being phased out because it is too dangerous I am not inclined to continue to use the shuttle architecture for the next major launch vehicle.

Zubrin also asserts that Mars can be settled and Mars is where the science is, both points are wrong. Mars will never be anything more than a government supported lab or subsistence colony because it has nothing to trade and is so far away. The Moon is where the science is, Mars has too much atmosphere for a lot of the interesting astronomy and physics which can be done on the Moon. While Mars is worth visiting I don’t think there will ever be many people living there.

A NASA Administrator I can agree with

In a prepared statement Michael Griifin the New NASA Administrator has laid out is views and I strongly agree with the folloiwing quote.

The country has already demonstrated the consistent support that NASA must have over an extended period of time to execute a program of human exploration. We simply have been doing other things with that money.